|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Slain teen’s shooter cleared under Stand Your Ground law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
State Attorney’s Office memo: “After thorough review of this case, it is clear that the use of deadly force by Rivers was justified and lawful and no further action is warranted by this office.”
The State Attorney’s Office has determined that a man suspected of fatally shooting an armed teenager in front of his Ocala home is immune from prosecution under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
Jeffery Scott, the 18-year-old Vanguard High School senior he killed, was pointing a gun at another teenager at the time, according to the Ocala Police Department. The shooter, Edrige Rivers, also hit — and paralyzed — Marcus Cooper, now 19, who was with Scott. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/6/2018)
|
'A regrettable situation all the way around, but the law worked as intended. (Note the platitudinous pap at the end of the piece.) |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|